My Certification Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Simple question:

Is creationism a scientifically certified myth?

And I said "myth" ... not lie ... not legend ... not story ... not [whatever] ... myth.

Here's an example for emphasis:

Scientist One: He had to study creationism and other legends.
Scientist Two: Creationism isn't a legend, it's a myth.
Scientist One: Whatever.
Scientist Two: No, not "whatever" ... myth.

So a simple YES or NO.

Is creationism a scientifically certified myth?

(And if you have to ask for clarification, I'm going to assume NO, since the clarification would come with the certification.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You can't scientifically certify a myth.

 

[VirOptimus]

What nonsense.

 

[Goonie]

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't scientifically certify a myth.

If someone abandons science to declare Genesis 1 a myth, is it fair for someone to abandon science to declare Genesis 1 true?

 

[essentialsaltes]

"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. 2. stories or matter of this kind"

Genesis is a liberal artsily certified myth.

 

[VirOptimus]

If someone abandons science to declare Genesis 1 a myth, is it fair for someone to abandon science to declare Genesis 1 true?

It dosent matter what one declares. Its a myth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If someone abandons science to declare Genesis 1 a myth, is it fair for someone to abandon science to declare Genesis 1 true?

What? No. Science has no bearing and no say on whether something is a myth.
A myth is a piece of art, a verbal story that has been passed down through generations, retold and retold countless times.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis is a liberal artsily certified myth.

It is a lexicographically-certified myth.

I'll give you that much.

But as to being scientifically-certified ... no.

And by the way:

"with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation" ???

So in other words, even if they have a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, it's still a myth ... isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

It dosent matter what one declares. Its a myth.

Then it is fair for one to say:

"It doesn't matter what one declares. It's still truth."

 

[AV1611VET]

What? No. Science has no bearing and no say on whether something is a myth.

Fair enough ... thanks.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then it is fair for one to say:

"It doesn't matter what one declares. It's still truth."

Truth or not truth, still a myth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Truth or not truth, still a myth.

Solid aurum.

Sigworthy.

 

[VirOptimus]

Solid aurum.

I cant help that you dont understand the concepts and terminology.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So in other words, even if they have a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, it's still a myth ... isn't it?

So say the folklorists, it seems, and this determination is within their purview.

 

[AV1611VET]

I cant help that you dont understand the concepts and terminology.

I don't need to.

Your last post says it all.

 

[AV1611VET]

So say the folklorists, it seems, and this determination is within their purview.

-- What?

ETA: Nevermind ... I got it.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't need to.

Your last post says it all.

You dont care that you use words snd concepts wrong? Ok, your loss.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Simple question:

Is creationism a scientifically certified myth?

As there is no such thing as a "scientifically certified" anything, the answer would have to be no.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is a lexicographically-certified myth.

I'll give you that much.

But as to being scientifically-certified ... no.

And by the way:

"with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation" ???

So in other words, even if they have a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, it's still a myth ... isn't it?

Science disproves or provides evidence for. It doesn't certify. Certifying comes with reliability and consistency, so the scientific process itself is certified, but it itself doesn't certify. Redoing experiments over and over again and the data being consistent might certify the experimental process, but not really the data. It would be a stretch of definition to say that science certifies.